Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Beware of sex-negative MRAs

A casual observer might get the impression that the Men's Rights Movement is growing, since there clearly are more self-identified MRAs now than ever. But actually, most of this growth sadly consists of a cheerleading chorus for the feminist sex abuse industry rather than any real antifeminism.

There is a deep schism in the MRM between sex-positive and sex-negative MRAs which is well illustrated by how Angry Harry is now treated at A Voice for Men. Angry Harry is a venerable old MRA, a founding father of the movement, and for him to be ostracized like that just for being eminently reasonable is a travesty.

TyphonBlue, the AVfM crowd and other feminists have a special poster boy for female-on-male "rape" in the former marine James Landrith. I always felt James Landrith was one of the most unsavory characters on the entire Internet, as his advocacy for the expansion of rape law has disgusted me for many years now. Even if he were telling the truth, it is patently absurd to take his sob story of female sexual coercion seriously as rape. The story inspires jealousy in normal men instead of sympathy and Landrith is a hypersensitive outlier to be traumatized by whatever experience he had. Angry Harry says so himself,

Furthermore, even if these particular memories were 100% correct, it seemed very unlikely to me that a 'normal' man would be so traumatised - and remain traumatised even 20 years later - by the incidents described in his article. So, as I said, I groaned inwardly, being somewhat depressed at the thought that false memories and/or 'particularly sensitive' victims were invading one of my comfort zones in cyberspace.

Now it turns out this feminist poster boy is exposed as not only a preposterously sensitive moron but a fraud as well. Angry Harry has caught James Landrith carefully changing his story and relying on recovered memories just like any other feminist accuser of the most untrustworthy kind. Now Landrith even claims, based on memories recovered in therapy, that the woman spiked his drink before "raping" him, making the feminist melodrama complete.

I myself called out the female sex-offender charade several years ago. To me, nothing screams bullshit as loudly as claims of sexual abuse by women. I have emphatically stated that women cannot rape men nor sexually abuse boys. I regard it as crucially important for MRAs to make it perfectly clear that we do not acknowledge female sex offenders even in principle. It was clear to me from the beginning that the female sex-offender charade only serves to promote feminist sex laws that ultimately hurt men immeasurably more than it can help a few rare particularly sensitive outliers who are traumatized by female sexual coercion (if they even exist). It is unreasonable to make laws based on hysterical outliers, and most importantly, the laws they want correspond exactly to the most hateful feminist sex laws which hurt innocent men every day. Therefore, I cannot emphasize enough that anyone supporting the female sex-offender charade is not a true MRA. This is a very good test to separate the wheat from the chaff -- ask how someone feels about female sex offenders, and if they respond that male victims of women are marginalized and female sex offenders need to be prosecuted more vigorously (or at all), then they are most certainly not one of us.

The word for such people is feminist or mangina. And now I've got some bonus advice for manginas: If you want to be sex-negative, then there are ways to go about it without catering to the feminist abuse industry and without advertising how stupid you are. For someone brought up in a feminist milieu this might be difficult to grasp, but guess what -- there are ways to prohibit and punish undesirable sexual activity without defining it as "abuse" of some helpless "victim." Traditional moralists have done so for millennia. One example is Islamic sharia law. Another is traditional Christianity and our laws against adultery, fornication, sodomy and so on in place until recently. Even obscenity can be dealt with on grounds of morality rather than the hateful and ludicrous persecution of "child porn" we have now, where teenagers are criminalized as sex offenders for sharing "abuse" pictures of themselves. A blanket ban on obscenity such as in the old days would be infinitely better and more fair than this charade. I don't agree with the sex-hostility of traditional morality either, but at least it isn't as retarded as the false-flag MRAs who apply feminist sex abuse theory to males. So if you want to be taken seriously, it would serve you better to advocate for traditional moralist values and laws instead of the feminist sex-abuse nonsense.

When a boy gets lucky with an older woman such as a teacher, quit insisting he was "raped" or "abused," because sexual abuse is not what is going on here. Forcing these relationships into a framework of "rape" or "sexual abuse" designed for women only serves to showcase your lack of intelligence and ignorance of human sexuality. It is also not needed in order to proscribe such behavior if you really believe it needs to be a criminal matter. You can punish the woman (or both) for fornication and/or adultery if you insist on being so sex-hostile. No victimology is needed! No denying the boy got lucky and ludicrously attempting to define him as a "victim." No sucking up to the feminists and no display of extreme imbecility on your part.

I can't really argue with moralism, because it basically consists of preferences about what kind of society you'd like to live in or claims about the will of some deity. It is not in the realm of rationality, so beyond simply agreeing or disagreeing, there isn't all that much to say. But when you make claims about abuse and victimhood like the feminists do, those claims can be tested because they bear relation to the real world and human nature, which is what science is about. Thus scientific methods such as is employed by evolutionary psychology can greatly illuminate the nature of rape and sexual abuse, and whether women can be perpetrators, and it can easily be shown that feminist jurisprudence makes thoroughly unscientific claims. Feminist sex law is neither based on evidence, rationality nor morality and should not be taken seriously. It is mere pseudoscience concocted to justify an ulterior motive. If you still insist on it, you are left with pure absurdity, as is easily demonstrated by a simple thought experiment.

Feminist sex abuse is so arbitrarily defined that if you are blindfolded and transported to a random jurisdiction where you meet a nubile young woman, you would have to consult the wise feminists in the local legislature before knowing if you can feel attracted to her without being an abuser (or even a "pedophile" if you are utterly brainwashed). And if you see a romantic couple, you similarly cannot know if the younger one is being "raped" without consulting the feminists you admire so much. That's how much faith manginas place in feminists -- they allow them to rule their most intimate desires and defer to them unquestioningly. Manginas are feminist sycophants and the MRM is now full of them in places like AVfM, The Spearhead, and the Men's Rights subreddit.

What is going on is this. The manginas are so steeped in feminist propaganda that the only tool in their intellectual toolbox is "abuse." And so in Western countries, even conservatives and religious fanatics (barring Islamists) will only ever argue that any type of sexual activity needs to be banned because it constitutes "abuse." Old concepts of sin or crimes against nature/God have been almost entirely supplanted by the feminist sex "abuse" paradigm. In terms of "abuse" is now the sole means available to conceptualize anything you disapprove of regarding sexuality, so everyone, including devoutly religious people, jumps on the bandwagon and promotes the politically correct abuse industry. Even prostitution is now to be legislated exclusively in terms of sexual exploitation or "trafficking" of (mostly) women -- traditional morality does not enter into it and of course all whores are themselves only innocent victims while the johns are the abusers. Feminists and manginas simply cannot help themselves because they know no other morality after a lifetime of being exposed to feminist propaganda. Feminist theory is so pervasive, any alternative is literally unthinkable for liberals and conservatives alike these days. This is how you get the bizarre charade of putting women on trial for "raping" willing and eager 17-year-old boys. Prosecuting female sex offenders is the most comical and perverse legal charade in history, yet false-flag MRAs support it along with the feminists because they have been that well indoctrinated with feminism. Brainwashing really works. Last night I got a comment from a true believer which well illustrates the profoundly obtuse mindset of a male feminist:

if he says no, it is rape. if he is forced, it is rape. if he is under the legal age, it is rape and child molestation. plain and simple. same laws for all...and if women want to enjoy the privileges of modern society, they must be held accountable under the same laws and to the same degree.

Such blind devotion to feminist sex law is the hallmark of a mangina. They neither comprehend that men and women are different, nor do they see anything wrong with these hateful sex laws when applied to men either. Instead they unflinchingly support equal injustice for all. We real MRAs need to denounce these fools. Don't be led on by these impostors who claim to be on men's side while promoting the very worst aspects of feminism. Rest assured that real MRAs are not like that and we do exist. The real MRM will trudge on despite our depressingly small size at the moment.

154 comments:

Anonymous
said...

You seem to be convinced that all men and women think and feel the same. There are huge differences among men, and equally among women.

From a biological point of view, women are worse parkers than men, because they have a lower spatial intelligence. Do you think men should be punished harder, if they smash up a car? Is that justice in your definition of the word?

The same hateful laws should apply to everybody. Because that is what equality is all about. The only way society is going to change for the better, is the day when female sexuality is being demonized as male sexuality is today. Only then will people wake up and see the stupidity behind the sex laws in the first place.

A man or a woman crashing a car are doing the same thing, with the exact same consequences. And anyway, women ARE punished more for smashing up cars than men -- through higher insurance premiums to account for their higher risk, as they should be, but that is really a different sort of economics than criminal law and not directly relevant here.

A man and a woman having sex, however, are not doing the same thing. The acts of penetrating or being penetrated do not even physically look equal, so it takes a tremendous amount of feminist brainwashing to even entertain the notion that they are perfectly equivalent. You have to suspend all your instincts and common sense to go along with this charade. And even if the courts treat women exactly the same (which they may nearly already do for all I know), I doubt things will change for the better because women are much less interested in illegal sex anyway, being hypergamous rather than attracted to youth, most of the time. So even if women are treated "equally" under sex law, the law will have such a disparate impact on men and women that I doubt women will be discouraged from supporting these laws. How do you expect that to happen when most men don't even wake up and oppose hateful laws against us today?

Of course, what goes on in the brain is far more important than the physical appearance of the sex act, and the fundamental reason why women cannot be sexual predators is rooted in the difference in sexual mentality, but my point is that the respective sexualities of the sexes do not resemble each other at any level, even the most superficial one. So how feminists managed to convince anybody that they are equal just boggles the mind.

And no, my argument does not assume that all women (or men) think and feel the same. It is sufficient that there are great differences between the groups on average. When it comes to rape, the differences are so profound that the rare outlier who accuses a woman of rape should not be taken into account for all intents and purposes. I mean, we are talking about an event so rare that it has happened exactly once in all of Norwegian history, for example (in 2004), even though the cops and feminist justice system have been more than willing to accommodate such accusations at least since 2000 and most men will even say they believe women can be rapists due to all the feminist propaganda. But men simply don't feel compelled to accuse women of rape because it isn't a real problem. When just 1 in about 10,000 rape accusers since 2000 is a man accusing a woman, don't you think we can justifiably talk about some profound difference between the sexes here?

If there is a female equivalent of forcible rape, it is sex with a child. Dominating a child under her care, overpowering his natural impulse to mate with the young and fertile, violating social structures assuming male support of his mate--it's an altogether vile act. Women's hysteria over males selecting younger partners (even if the woman is in her 20s and showing signs of aging) is partly a projection of this internal taboo. I would argue that "statutory rape" is something only a woman can do, though the feminist hypocrites have shifted the stigmatization almost exclusively on males.

Maybe MRAs talking about women raping men are too mired in the feminist perspective. But, take the example of intoxicated sex. Feminists will claim that the woman was raped, while the man wasn't even if she grabbed his penis and stuck it in. By applying the law equally here, and coming to the conclusion that both parties were raping the other, it's more likely that the law will be revoked rather than sex become illegal. Otherwise women will continue on happily with sex being just illegal for men.

I disagree that women having sex with young boys is an issue either. So what if the boys prefer young and fertile women? It's not like fucking a few old women is going to prevent getting nubile girls later. On the contrary, it will help them have more success with all women through preselection and the confidence of experience.

If we are looking for a female equivalent to real, forcible rape, two alternatives stand out, to which female sexual coercion (or underage sex) is a grotesque red herring in comparison.

1. Paternity fraud2. False accusations of rape

Number 1 is the closest match in a reproductive sense (actually worse), commandeering the man's reproductive resources to her own selfish ends. In the mating game, a man's provider resources are the equivalent to women's bodies. And false accusations of rape can easily produce traumatization equal to or exceeding rape, so I guess #2 will come closest to being perceived similarly.

Perhaps equal application of rape law can serve to derail some rape cases where the parties are both held to have "raped each other" since both were drunk, but wouldn't it be better to define rape sensibly in the first place, so that drunken regretted sex is never prosecuted as "rape" in any event? Why advocate some retarded stopgap measure when the entire issue can be solved by attacking feminist rape reform altogether?

I thought women paid less for car insurance than men until they are 25 or so, at which point men become safer drivers because they lose some risky habits. Men are better drivers at all ages, but young men are so bold and reckless that they cause more accidents than young women, hence women start out paying less. Still, women pay more in total if you count their entire lives.

But it may have changed since last I checked (forced "equality"?) or I may be wrong. Anyway, it doesn't change my arguments concerning the abuse industry.

Anon929: "The same hateful laws should apply to everybody. Because that is what equality is all about."

NO. That is what TYRANNY is all about.

"The only way society is going to change is when female sexuality is demonised as male sexuality is today."

It will change alright---for the worst.

Too many MRAs cannot grasp this simple concept, although feminist leaders fully understand it: gender equality and gender polarity are NOT the same things. Even Andrea Dworkin admitted that feminism could never succeed in a society where 'equality' alone prevailed; but gender polarity has to be destroyed first---and that is EXACTLY what demonizing sexuality accomplishes.

"Only then will people wake up and see the stupidity behind the sex laws in first place."

Again, false. The AOC laws punish both parties and all that has accomplished among the populace are paedohysterical witch-hunts and the establishment of organized crime syndicates like Child Protective Services.

I tend to believe that James Landrith is, if not lying about what happened at a basic level, has indeed added some details to make his story more compelling.Date rape drugs (as several studies show) are rare. Yet now he claims to have been drugged, not merely intoxicated. Seems like the story has "expanded" over time. And even if I agree he was a victim of sexual coercion, I don't think that excuses his later behavior like he seems to think it should.

That being said, I don't understand how you could think most guys would consider him lucky. Pregnant women turn off quite a few men all by themselves, and while it wasn't Roseanne on top of him that night, the woman involved wasn't a raving beauty.

And as far as it goes, Elvind, you'd make a good feminist. Quite a few of them apply double standards to male and female (group average) sexuality all the time, and will never be found taking a woman to task for anything. At least you make exceptions for false rape claims and paternity fraud, but if I was a 9 year old boy who was repeatedly "gifted" with my 40 year old aunts decaying body on the threat of beatings, I wouldn't find you a single bit different. You'd be quite useless to me.

How did the woman guess that Landrith was such a total dunce that she needed to drug him in order to have sex? Have you ever seen a woman in a bar thinking she needs to resort to drink-spiking in order to get laid, pregnant or not?

And then it takes him 20 years to "remember" that he hadn't really been drinking much anyway, and must have been drugged. Yeah, right.

As to your aunt scenario, no sympathy there, unless you were also genuinely abused as by beatings and such. Of course women can abuse boys in various ways, but by sex per se is not one of them. Making the problem out to be about "sexual abuse" only arouses envy rather than sympathy. 40 isn't even old anyway and even less so to a young boy, who tends to be so horny the age of the woman scarcely makes a difference.

I certainly do take women to task for the real, blameworthy crimes they commit. There is no double standard or pedestalizing, just simple recognition of what is harmful and what is not and what is even extremely desirable yet perversely defined as criminal by feminist sex law. Men should be a lot more concerned with the real damage women can do to them than the red herring of female sex offenders. How is it possible to pretend female rapists is a huge problem while ignoring that paternity fraud isn't even recognized as a crime and false rape accusations are rarely prosecuted? And how can a man advocate a legal concept of rape that is 10000 times more likely to be used against him than to be useful for him? It makes no sense, and calls into question either the intelligence or motives of those who claim that type of activism is good for men.

Unlike Eivind, I don't think a boy will necessarily be happy if a woman forced him into sex or simply seduced him. I think the fact that he sees ALL such boys as lucky or happy blurs the real issue.

The real issue is separating sexual violation from abuse in general. Threatening a kid with beatings to make him do anything can be seen as abuse. Spanking might be one thing, but you are not supposed to beat your kid, or threaten with that. If you take sex out of it, it's possible to fuck up your kid with shitty parenting alone. I remember Richard Dawkins, who said that teaching kids about hell might be seen as child abuse, because it can cause anxiety and nightmares, for example.

Quite a lot of men wouldn't react the same way a woman would, if they woke up and found a member of the opposite sex on top of them, having sex with them. It just seems like for a lot of men, this type of thing could produce indifference, a degree of happiness, irritation, confusion, and in worst case anger about the woman being insolent (I'm basing that on what these guys have said). But it still isn't the same reaction that a woman has. The latter might require therapy, the former not so much.

But of course, some men do react the same way as women. And I don't know what the percentages are, but Eivind thinks it's not usual for a man to feel sexually violated by a woman.

What Eivind is insisting upon, is that persecution for rape and sexual abuse should only take place when there has been a sexual violation, but not when it comes to other types of abuse. Other types of abuse and torture should be taken care of by laws against abuse and torture. For example, women sticking a stick up a man's butt to torture him is torture and physical abuse, but not rape. A woman threatening a boy with beatings to get sex from him is abusive, but not a rapist.

And these are Eivind's thoughts. Whether you agree with him or not on whether women can sexually violate men, you can't say he's pedestalizing women. It simply isn't true.

One more note. Eivind bases his views on science. Biology. Yes, the road from facts about life towards how it should be organized, is still individual and subjective, but his isn't based on letting women off the hook and giving them a pussy pass as much as possible. That I know.

@ClarenceYou said among other things:"That being said, I don't understand how you could think most guys would consider him lucky. Pregnant women turn off quite a few men all by themselves, and while it wasn't Roseanne on top of him that night, the woman involved wasn't a raving beauty."

I've had WORSE than 'Rosanne' on top of me and you're right: I didn't consider myself 'lucky' at all...However by the same token, it doesn't mean I want to subscribe to that misandrist, FEMINIST abuse-industry victim-hood status and spend the rest of my life wallowing in self pity either.

I am a man, not a mangina, I move on. I get over the unpleasant things that I and EVERYONE else experiences from time to time, throughout their lives. That's what being an adult and being a man is all about. 'Equal Injustice for ALL' will achieve NOTHING for either men or women. All it will do is validate their Draconian male sexuality laws, via validation of their abuse industry fairy-tales, such as: repressed memory recovery of things like 'Satanic Ritual Abuse'.

It is THAT kind of feminist bullshit WE as MRAs are opposed to and trying (without YOUR help) to eliminate.

Go back to mangina Elam and his blog 'A Voice for manginas', where you belong.

Eivind & Emma: Part of demonizing sexuality has had this component of making 'sex crimes' into a completely seperate category of criminality. IOW, by taking what is already criminal behavior and adding a sexual element to it to make it worse.

Take rape or what is known here as 'sexual assault' for example. Both crimes could be prosecuted just as easily under extant laws governing assault and battery. There's no need to add a sexual aspect to it unless the purpose is to stereotype sex as an 'aggravating factor' (as the lawyers say) which makes any event involving sex seem worse because of the presence of a sexual motive.

@Eric,You know it just dawned on me what makes this whole female sexual assault or rape (call it whatever you like) on men and boys so patently ridiculous...

Let's just say (pretend) that 1000 GENUINE sexual assaults are reported to the police in one jurisdiction over say 1 year.Lets ALSO assume that Paul Elam and his indoctrinated mangina sheep get their way and "EQUAL INjustice for ALL" laws are passed and are therefore taken seriously by the judiciary. I.e. they will come down equally as severely and unforgivably on women found guilty of sexually assaulting (or 'raping') men as they currently do on MEN perpetrators, who rape women / girls...

Out of the 1000 reported cases (remember all 1000 are REAL cases not false rape), how many do you think would be reported by MALE VICTIMS?

At a conservative guess I would say probably about 10...

The point they have missed or maybe they just don't care (because their femihag slave-masters are happy), because as Eivind keeps saying: WOMEN can get sex! Generally speaking: they don't have to rape or 'force themselves onto' men or boys to get sex! They are the ones who grant US (MEN), their permission, (Yes or No) as to whether or not WE get to have sex with THEM.

That is the essential difference between men and woman when it comes to sex:Even ugly FAT old bags can usually find some man (young or old, but more than likely YOUNG), who will find them attractive enough to desire them sexually.

Especiallyyoung (and horny) men.Just look to the 'Cougar' phenomenon...This basic fact of life totally invalidates their whole ridiculous 'men can be victims of female rapists' argument.Maybe they can be, but I'm sure they would find that in the real world, such victims would be VERY rare: insignificantly rare.

So if this stupid law of equal injustice for both men and women is passed it will make NO DIFFERENCE, OTHER than totally validate, beyond redemption the current Draconian feminist hate inspired: normal male sexuality laws and even further boost the already ridiculous levels of paedohysteria.

In the end, our society will be such a hostile environment for men, that gendercide might start looking like an attractive option or destiny.

These dumbed-down, brainwashed manginas MUST be stopped before its too late.

That article describes how women are punished less severely for all crimes, and for the most part, that is not fair. I am all for women being sentenced to just as much time for murder and other violence, for example. But it makes the mistake of equating male and female sexual acts. Again, a man and a woman having sex are not doing the same thing! It is absurd to pretend a woman's sexual act is morally equal to that of a man, because female sexuality is perceived and valued in a profoundly different way, and therefore it is entirely fair to never punish women for sex crimes.

I am curious as to why you would even think women should be treated equally when it comes to sexual offenses. Just blind faith in the feminist tenet that the sexes are equal?

Well, male and female sexuality clearly aren't valued equally normally, so why should they be when it comes to sexual offenses? There was recently a virginity auction which allows us to crudely quantify the difference.

That's valuing female sexuality over male sexuality by a factor of 300. If female sexuality is worth 300 times more, must we not conclude that female sexual "abuse" is probably similarly less damaging also? Thus, if women get something like 1/300 or 0.33% as much punishment as men do for sexual offenses, that would seem fair. Currently women get way more than that, so the injustice is actually in the opposite direction, as I have argued: The female sex-offender charade punishes women unfairly for sex crimes they are not truly culpable for. And many of these crimes are not even real crimes when men commit them! I can't think of a worse way to deal with this situation than pushing for more severe punishments for women. It is insane.

If you have a problem with male sexuality being so worthless compared to female sexuality, then your beef is with evolution, not the justice system. Sex being a female resource is just the way it is, and it's futile to be mad about it and unfair to punish women for bogus sex crimes just to enforce a pretense of equality.

Value is not what justice is about. If you think that, you might as well punish a jew or a black harder than a white, or whatever. Everybody should in principle be punished equally for the same crime in the same country, if we set apart obvious grounds like age and so on.

Only when the stupidious laws are inflicted on both sexes, will people wake up and challenge the justice system of today. For people have more empathy with women. It is much harder to punish a single mother with rabbit eyes, than a man. It is exactly like in protection of animal rights. People go bananas when they see a cute rabbit being slaughtered, but care less of the viper facing the same destiny.

Justice should be about value. The punishment should fit the crime. Your racial analogy does not make sense. The damage isn't greater if a black man robs you, so race is irrelevant here. But most men are far less traumatized by female sexual coercion than the reverse, so the sex of the offender is highly relevant to sex crimes.

The typical victim of a female sex crime feels lucky, or at worst slightly inconvenienced, and it would be egregiously unjust for the law not to take this into account.

The notion about women being traumatized is a construction. Granted there are genuine sex-crimes, and in that respect one has every right to feel traumatized. But a lot of it is pure bullshit. I feel no empathy with a woman claiming to be traumatized because a man touched her or looked at her intensely. In that regard, a woman should be punished just as hard for doing the same thing against a man. Or the laws themselves should be revoked. The latter seems rather unlikely as long as only men are being pressed charges at.

When it comes to real rape, unwanted penetration of the female genitals, there are gender differences. But I can never accept that a young vulnerable boy can be equally traumatized by and old hags penetration of his arse, as that of the raped woman.

All human beings have the same value. Despite the fact that women or some men might be more popular among the other sex, or whatever. Despite the fact that some are drug addicts or some have mental issues. Justice should not be about value, but about rational facts.

My racial analogy makes sense, because the notion about female traumatization is merely a feminist construction. You seem brainwashed by the feminists yourself, using rethoric like this. The so called sexual female "victims" will for the most part get no empathy from me. It's just a way of gaining power and positions in society. It is all a charade.

Yes, much of what feminists call "abuse" is a construction. Age of consent, for instance, is a legal fiction, and of course evolution did not make females either who are traumatized by sex up to some arbitrary age. Only a gullible fool can buy into such nonsense.

But it is still not right to ask for more of the same injustice. Two wrongs do not make a right. Supporting the female sex-offender charade is wrong on so many levels. It is dishonest, misguided, and evil not to call bullshit on female sex offenders. It is dishonest because we know the boys are lucky rather than victims. It is misguided because it won't prevent these hateful laws from being enforced; instead it will perpetuate them. And it is evil because it means sending innocent, nice women to prison as phony sex offenders.

"The notion about women being traumatized is a construction. Granted there are genuine sex-crimes, and in that respect one has every right to feel traumatized. But a lot of it is pure bullshit. I feel no empathy with a woman claiming to be traumatized because a man touched her or looked at her intensely. In that regard, a woman should be punished just as hard for doing the same thing against a man. Or the laws themselves should be revoked. "

Actually, if you look closely, Eivind doesn't take all that stuff seriously either (intense staring, touching). He's not saying a man who is touching or staring should be punished harder.

You and him are talking about one thing only - how to punish it when a person forces another person to have sex with them.

"When it comes to real rape, unwanted penetration of the female genitals, there are gender differences."

Glad you also see this. Forget all that other stuff (touching/staring), it's not relevant here.

" But I can never accept that a young vulnerable boy can be equally traumatized by and old hags penetration of his arse, as that of the raped woman. "

Here's the thing.. It's annoying when someone comes on this site, hears Eivind say "women can't rape men" and assumes Eivind thinks sticking a cactus up a man's butt should be legal. He is only talking about this scenario: woman forces a man into sex and fucks his penis with her vagina.

A woman penetrating a man with something is torturing him, not raping him. Which might actually be a worse crime, requiring more jail time.

I remember it was in the news, some kids were poking an unconscious girl in the vagina with a shark spick and hurt her. I think it was used by feminists to deduce that rape must be about power. Except what these kids were doing was the equivalent of poking a stranded jellyfish, or, treating a human being as nothing but a jellyfish. It's not a goddammn rape. But it's a bad crime.

How is it possible to pretend female rapists is a huge problem while ignoring that paternity fraud isn't even recognized as a crime and false rape accusations are rarely prosecuted? And how can a man advocate a legal concept of rape that is 10000 times more likely to be used against him than to be useful for him? It makes no sense, and calls into question either the intelligence or motives of those who claim that type of activism is good for men.

Amen. Great how you summarize such things so clearly and easily.

By the way, I was booted out of AVM too.

I actually think AVM is doing some great work regarding men's rights EXCEPT that they actively support imprisonment of men for all kinds of so called sex crimes, like possession of photos of 17 year olds.

What do we think about this stuff? Ho many among us would never be able to check off on at least two or three of these points.. ? (Given the right circumstances, for instance being trapped in a situation, like a school or a small town, having little money - could be because some gold digger took most of it, or divorce, or any other reason.)

http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/profile.html

I'll agree there are types who one might definitely check off most of the point on, but those types are not in circulation freely for very long - they are patently anti-social and tend to get locked up for long stretches of time...

So, what is the relevance of this point-by-point list? Does it have any merit, or will it nurture more positive than negative outcomes (for instance fostering a climate of fear, or adding to the one fostered by US feminists and US tv-series sentiments a lot already).. ?

I'm going to be ignoring AlanVaughn as he thinks he can tell other men what their sexuality should be like, and is a pretty obnoxious person on top of that.

First, Elvind:I'm going to agree with you that sex, BY ITSELF (assuming the sex is safe and disease free) cannot hurt anyone. We agree on that.

I will even agree with you that many "sex crimes" should only be prosecuted for violence, coercion, and other things that have nothing to do with the sex, per-se.

And guess what? We even agree the abuse industry is out of control and has absolutely no sense of proportion.

So why are we arguing? Because male "NO's" need to be respected in the same way that female NO's are, and not every male has sex on the brain all the time. I suppose we also disagree with what places like A Voice for Men can realistically do in the current political climate, esp. when male abuse survivors (both sexual, meaning forced or unconscious sex and physical meaning just straight up physical abuse) can't get any help from organizations at all. Clearly there is an "abuse against men" problem that needs to be solved, the problem is that the current solutions often - heck, MOSTLY do more harm than good as they usually involve criminalizing sex more and more.

It would be interesting to see your ideas for solutions. Pretending men never get abused isn't an answer, but neither is continually expanding mostly feminist/puritanist inspired sex laws.

"A woman threatening a boy with beatings to get sex from him is abusive, but not a rapist."

With the sole exception of that paragraph, I am in agreement with everything you said. And I suspect that is you , paraphrasing Elvind.

However, physically coerced sex is coerced sex and physically coerced sex is rape.

As for where Elvind gets his ideas , I've been reading his blog for several years now. I'm well aware he bases his view of the relative values of male and female sexuality on evolutionary psychology; however I feel he gives that science just a bit too much credit, as there is a lot we don't know and have to guess at.

Thank you and Elvind for your repectful, rational responses.

As for A Voice for Men and all this stuff, I feel that eventually they WILL have to deal with it, but ironically, right now, they can't. Working on an equal rights amendment and working to reform family court laws and procedures are big enough things to try and handle what with all the entrenched political and social interests attached to those things. At worst, I think AVFM might inadvertently push the sexual laws along a bit farther in the draconian direction they are heading anyway, I don't see AVFM or groups affiliated with them having the power to directly oppose it anytime soon. So I'm going to back them in their activism (except for certain things involving sex) and back any actions men affiliated with you or Angry Harry may take as well, even though right now I don't think there's a chance in hell of getting more sane laws involving sexuality, at least until the MRM has more institutional power.

I hope no one will hate me for supporting AVFM in some types of activism (and not in others), but it doesn't really matter to me. I see they have their use.

You still insist you need the police state to help enforce a man's "no" to a woman, and that is a fundamental disagreement. You know what men used to rely on for that? Physical strength, and if that's not sufficient, then the woman will have committed some other form of violence which could be prosecuted nonsexually. Except if the man is unconscious and intoxicated, but then I suggest not getting drunk and getting into bed with women like James Landrith did, if you are so scared of sex. Not under any circumstances do we need to pretend women can rape men, because that will only feed the monstrous abuse industry we have now. You sound just like a feminist wanting to be reckless and safe at the same time -- basically having a policeman in every bedroom to make sure there is absolutely no moment without enthusiastic consent and full alertness -- but it's just not possible to have it both ways, because any time you start policing people's intimate relations in such excruciating detail, you hand over power to an abuse industry that quickly gets out of control.

Rape isn't just lack of consent or mild sexual coercion or exploiting unconsciousness. Rape is sex obtained by serious violence, and we need to turn back the legal definition to match that. I don't know the solution to everything, but turning back feminist rape law reform would be a good start and should be the number one priority for men, in my view.

Besides, we already have an abuse industry eager to accommodate male victims. Nothing is more politically correct than accusing a woman of rape. But so far less than one man comes forward to accuse a woman of rape per decade in Norway, despite all the massive propaganda about rape being everywhere and gender-neutral. And now your poster boy James Landrith is exposed as a liar. So maybe men don't need your stupid rape law? Or maybe you want to force them somehow to accuse more women?

Or maybe reasonable men don't want to wallow in "rape" or "abuse" by women. And it sure doesn't seem like a worthy goal to aspire to.

And the one and only accused female-on-male "rape" in Norwegian history is this one, btw, which wasn't even sex, just fellatio. The courts proved their feminist mettle by taking it every bit as seriously as a female accuser, if not more so. Conviction rate when a man accuses a woman: 100%.

http://blogcritics.org/culture/article/woman-convicted-of-rape/

"BERGEN - A 23-year-old woman has been sentenced to nine months in a Norwegian prison for the rape of a 31-year-old man upon whom she had performed fellatio. The man, who was asleep on a friend's couch reportedly woke to find the woman having oral sex with him."

That was back in 2004. What are all the other male "victims" of female "rape" waiting for, if this is indeed a problem? Do we need to pour millions more into feminist propaganda to make them come forward, or what, Clarence?

Eivind, I think we pretty much agree that a man who is totally intoxicated and passed ought to have a reasonable expectation not to get fucked by a girl he had no prior relationship with.

The idea of getting a kid with her genes, having to deal with her as the mother and having to pay her is pretty traumatic, but due to man-made laws.

Or the idea of getting a disease from a repugnant woman (bad enough to get a disease from a hot chick)

But yes, the sex act itself might be unpleasant but not worse then being dunked into a toilet, or much better then getting a serious beating.

A friend of mine from the Philippines told me that some gender mixed fraternities/sororities have hazing rituals that involve serious spankings. Girls can opt to engage in sex instead of getting floggings and regularly do so even if they are virgins.

"I'm going to be ignoring AlanVaughn as he thinks he can tell other men what their sexuality should be like, and is a pretty obnoxious person on top of that."

Is that a promise? I hope so.

You are a treacherous little mangina along with all your feminist, brainwashed friends over at a A Voice for manginas.If you want to live your life as a sappy, feminist abuse-industry victim, while supporting their Draconian laws that demonize and criminalize millions of men for the heinous crime of being sexually NORMAL; be their guest.

If you're so concerned about men being 'raped', why aren't you and your cronies concerned about the REAL, ANAL rape that men who are wrongfully imprisoned (under FEMINIST man-hate laws, for being sexually normal - i.e. possessing "child-porn"), have to suffer, often on a daily basis from self-righteous thugs such as 'granny murderers' in prisons?They are also violently assaulted, sometimes fatally. Why aren't you concerned about those TRUE male rape victims?

When you, Paul Elam and the rest of your mangina colleagues change your tune and recognize that they are the REAL male rape victims (disregarding their WRONGFUL imprisonment in the first place - which is another issue that needs to be addressed), and that feminist male sexuality laws are the number 1 men's rights issue: then I might listen to you!

Supporting feminist abuse-industry's victimhood nonsense for men or women is only validating their hateful laws and will only make it much easier for them to introduce even more Draconian and more oppressive laws.

I see this tactic used by feminist trolls on US blogs all the time. Rob Fedders, a Canadian MRA, exposed the technique and illustrated how it's done: single out one commenter as a scapegoat and try to steer a group that way. Just do a Google search for 'Delphi Technique' and 'Diamond Technique' and you'll see exactly what Rob was describing.

Alan: 'Women can get sex. Generally speaking, they don't have to rape or force themselves on men.'

True---but you would be surprised at how many mRAs, and especially the 'femRAs', will deny this obvious fact. Almost every 'pro-MRA' female I've ever encountered will swear thouroughly that getting sex is just as difficult for women. That's patently untrue, just like when they say that women chase thugs because 'they are invisible to good men.'

And white knights will fall for both untruths. But point this out to them, and you feel lucky not to have been burned at the stake afterwards, which they'd likely do if they could!

@Eric"I see this tactic used by feminist trolls on US blogs all the time. Rob Fedders, a Canadian MRA, exposed the technique and illustrated how it's done: single out one commenter as a scapegoat and try to steer a group that way."

LOL...Well he'd be wasting his time here! I already told him (using many words, except the word 'troll' itself), how I think he's a feminist troll, but you said it anyway.

I don't even know for sure that Clarence is a man. For all I know, he could well be typhonblue, using another alias. When reading his ridiculous, feminist inspired 'male rape victim' arguments, one could certainly be forgiven for thinking he could in fact be 'she' - a feminist troll..

@Eric,Just out of curiosity I googled 'Delphi Technique' and opened one of the millions of links that were returned...Yes I see your point, very clearly. [LOL]...Here's just one paragraph from quite a large essay on the technique, that was under the only link I randomly clicked, from the google search results:

"This technique is a very unethical method of achieving consensus on a controversial topic in group settings. It requires well-trained professionals who deliberately escalate tension among group members, pitting one faction against the other, so as to make one viewpoint appear ridiculous so the other becomes "sensible" whether such is warranted or not"...

"That was back in 2004. What are all the other male "victims" of female "rape" waiting for, if this is indeed a problem? Do we need to pour millions more into feminist propaganda to make them come forward, or what, Clarence?"

Maybe yes. It certainly proved successful when the paedohysterical British public decided to persecute a DECEASED ex-BBC personality: The lure of 'victims compensation' (funded by the total wealth of his deceased estate and no doubt by taxes, at least in part), certainly brought the late Sir Jimmy Savile's 'abuse victim' accusers out of the woodwork, many DECADES after the 'sexual abuses' allegedly occurred.

The EU witch-hunt of sexual abusers is now so hysterical, 'bat-shit crazy' and illogical, that they are no longer satisfied with persecuting and scapegoating living 'perverts', they now have to add DEAD 'paedos' to their growing list of scapegoats.

The paedohysterical western society is more ignorant and superstitious in 2012/13, than were our pitch-fork wielding, inbred, medieval inquisitorial ancestors, hunting witches and heretics to be burned at the stake during the 15th / 16th centuries. Read here:http://theantifeminist.com/steve-moxon-jimmy-savile-report/

I've left some comments years ago, before your trial, and I just caught up to those events.

I admit I thought you were overdoing it, but now I think I was wrong. You were just courageous.

As to the content of this post, I agree. In fact at the heart of feminism is "victim-worship", which comes from the female "nurturing values" becoming the dominant and only values of society. Every masculine values such as assertiveness are then demonized, even in cases where it is a woman that displays them.

Those who like this fundamental tenet of feminism might want to see women (especially attractive women) to fall prey to feminist laws themselves. Those are still feminists.

Thank you for raising your (now) rather prominent voice against this crap.

Eric:Alan Vaughn has nothing but insult and dares to tell me how I should think and how I should act.He can go fuck himself, and you can go fuck yourself too, if you think it is ok to treat mild disagreement with such stupidity, condescension, and vitrol.

By the way, I post on Emma's blog, but I can't use the same plugin here. I've been all over the manosphere, and been involved with MRA BEFORE there was a "manosphere" maybe if you weren't a feminist pretender (see , I can be stupid and insulting t0o) you'd know who I am.

Anyway, that's enough time wasted on this sideshow. Back to Elvind and, you know, actual substantive arguments.

"You still insist you need the police state to help enforce a man's "no" to a woman, and that is a fundamental disagreement. You know what men used to rely on for that? Physical strength, and if that's not sufficient, then the woman will have committed some other form of violence which could be prosecuted nonsexually. Except if the man is unconscious and intoxicated, but then I suggest not getting drunk and getting into bed with women like James Landrith did, if you are so scared of sex..."

I think Human Stupidity gave you my answer concerning men being taken advantage of while they are unconscious, so I'll refer you to his post concerning that.

"You sound just like a feminist wanting to be reckless and safe at the same time -- basically having a policeman in every bedroom to make sure there is absolutely no moment without enthusiastic consent and full alertness -- but it's just not possible to have it both ways, because any time you start policing people's intimate relations in such excruciating detail, you hand over power to an abuse industry that quickly gets out of control..."

Elvind, since the PTB have made your life hell for the past year or so, I will forgive you for not knowing that I have repeatedly expressed my fear and disagreement with putting "enthusiastic consent" into law at the following places:The SpearheadClarisse Thornes blog (Except for the "Yes Means Yes" blog where it originated almost "Ground Zero" for enthusiastic consent)Feminist CriticsCommunity of the Wrongly Accused

...and probably a few other places I don't remember. Maybe Dalrocks marriage blog which often discusses feminism and sex laws and such things.

I have also argued with Typhonblue about the incidence of female/male rape (I don't believe it's anywhere near the same in prevalence if we are talking force), female on male domestic violence, evolutionary psychology and whether men are more monogamous then women(she believes the differences between the sexes are far less than I do), and at least a few other things. These fights can be found on the Feminist Critics and Genderratic blogs. I do not hold most of the opinions you assume I have.

"Besides, we already have an abuse industry eager to accommodate male victims. Nothing is more politically correct than accusing a woman of rape. But so far less than one man comes forward to accuse a woman of rape per decade in Norway, despite all the massive propaganda about rape being everywhere and gender-neutral. And now your poster boy James Landrith is exposed as a liar. So maybe men don't need your stupid rape law? Or maybe you want to force them somehow to accuse more women?"

This has nothing to do with anything I've ever said, though I do think surveys which actually took male victims into account would find more male victims. Quite a few surveys, at least in the US deliberately ignore men. The goal is to demonize MALE SEXUALITY by pretending women can't do horrid things with theirs.It's been pretty damn successful.

"Or maybe reasonable men don't want to wallow in "rape" or "abuse" by women. And it sure doesn't seem like a worthy goal to aspire to."

Who wants to wallow in anything? I simply don't want to ignore legitimate male victims of forced or unconscious sex. It's Typhonblue and a few others that seem prepared to push it further than that.

By the way, something you should know about Typhonblue: She was repeatedly forcibly raped as a child by a female relative. The feminist movement did NOT help her. And I think that's why she sometimes is harder on women (she seems to consider females the less "moral" sex (more inclined to cheat, flighty, etc, as if sexes had morality )than on men.

"Eric:Alan Vaughn has nothing but insult and dares to tell me how I should think and how I should act..."

It's you and your feminist bullshit that you're trying to plug and use to tell the entire human race how to "think and act" actually, you pathetic little feminist crawling DRIP!

You don't even qualify as a mangina: trying to promote their abuse industry and force men to be PATHETIC little girly victims (so your loony feminist 'therapists' can force them to accept they are "victims" of WOMEN and little girls, makes you more like a feminist TROLL, such as your mentors - typhonblue, or even better - Dean Excrement Esmay...

I had to laugh when you thanked Eivind for his "repectful, rational responses", yet on another antifeminist blog, only a few hours earlier, you demonstrated a totally different opinion or perception of Eivind...

You are a typical feminist, a two faced RAT and a slippery one at that.I can't understand why Eivind even lets you leave comments here. You and all your femRAs and mRAs plugging this FEMINIST'men-CAN-be-RAPE-victims-to-WOMEN' mantra ARE NOT MRAs, you're ALL a pack of feminist SCUM.

And if you think I'm 'obnoxious', I'm not even angry yet..

Besides, didn't you say this?

"I'm going to be ignoring AlanVaughn as he thinks he can tell other men what their sexuality should be like, and is a pretty obnoxious person on top of that."

Well what you just said to Eric isn't IGNORING me... LOL!

Watch out some HOT 38 year old 'Cougar' doesn't "RAPE" you, you poor pathetic little troll.

Where else than from intensely feministically brain-washed Bergen, Norway, could a band consisting of males, but with a very effeminate singer (male voice), come up with the brooding, self-examining and consciousness driven lyrics line:

- "Women can get sex. Generally speaking, they don't have to rape or force themselves on men."

- True---but you would be surprised at how many mRAs, and especially the 'femRAs', will deny this obvious fact.

Could it be that those male rapees want to delude themselves and their public that they're sooo attractive women can't resist forcing themselves upon them? Looks is a raw nerve with some men. So it is that many a smart-ass will deny ever patronizing prostitutes in order to generate the impression - one easily dispelled by a cursory look at his physique - that he is well able to attract girls without bribing them.

"Eivind, I think we pretty much agree that a man who is totally intoxicated and passed ought to have a reasonable expectation not to get fucked by a girl he had no prior relationship with."

Yes, I agree men ought to be able to have that expectation, but I still don't agree that it should be ever be recognized as rape or sexual assault, because female sexuality does not have the power to be an aggravating factor just because there is something sexual going on. The sexual aspect should be considered irrelevant for all legal purposes, in my opinion. Indeed, most men would consider it mitigating if the woman has a sexual motive, so why should we pretend it necessarily makes it worse? If a man insists on pressing charges against a woman for sex while he was unconscious and had a reasonable expectation to be left alone, then the appropriate law to use is the one covering simple assault. In Norway that would be this one, with a far more reasonable level of punishment of up to one year:

And this, incidentally, would also be the law to use in the case where a Norwegian man was recently convicted as a "rapist" for changing a tampon on a woman in her sleep. Even the appellate court has now absurdly found this to be "rape," though they decreased the punishment considerably:

I was expecting this. Norway is behind the times in still having a statute of limitations on rape and sexual abuse. Expect the statutes of limitations to be abolished on all sex crimes, and this applied retroactively, so that we can put old men on trial for abuse allegations dating back many decades on the word alone of some accuser, just like they do in the ongoing Savile hysteria in the UK.

"Woman can not sexually abuse boys - generally agreed, with the following exceptions:

1. The boy is homosexual - then it would be traumatic"

What a typical (ridiculous) 'gender-equal' feminist view!

I can assure you that if the PERPETRATOR is homosexual (and the 'victim' is normal), it is a lot MORE traumatic for the victim, but STILL, NOT traumatic enough to be ruined as such by the feminist operated sex-abuse industry.

Once anyone allows themselves to be 'treated' by those feminist loonies and charlatans, or worse: is forced (by the new laws you and your kind are advocating), to accept their treatment; he or she really will be traumatized for life, not to mention how it helps them further perpetuate their wicked agenda onto society, in the longer term.

@Jack"Could it be that those male rapees want to delude themselves and their public that they're sooo attractive women can't resist forcing themselves upon them? Looks is a raw nerve with some men."

Yes, possibly so however, as far as this discussion is concerned, it probably isn't important:I think the essence of this argument which seems to be something that our friend Clarence either refuses to accept, or simply does not understand is how we as MRAs MUST refuse to endorse or validate the feminist's essential and highly lucrative ABUSE INDUSTRY.

The proponents of the 'female rapist, that rapes men and boys proposal', offer many arguments (some of which may even be quite valid), however they appear to have forgotten their purpose in life, which was until recently: OPPOSING feminism.

Now, they seem to be accepting feminism's wicked ideologies and subscribing to them, BY ACCEPTING their abuse industry, by desiring to willingly volunteer themselves as MEN 'victims' of 'female sexual-abusers'!

They just don't seem to understand the important role that the abuse industry plays in feminism, overall.

Eivind has been busy trying to explain this, and even agreeing that men can indeed be victims of women, however, what we don't need and what society doesn't need is to help feminists further perpetuate their wicked agenda, by patronizing and FUNDING their essential abuse industry.

If we could somehow destroy their abuse industry we would probably have at least a very good chance at ending feminism itself!

The goal of destroying feminism will NEVER be achievable by VALIDATING and FUNDING the core industry that provides their hateful organization with the funding it needs to enforce and propagate its societal wide, destructive agenda, ideologies and mantras.

Eivind also reminded us that men who feel they are victims of any kind of abuse, can already utilize existing legislation to prosecute against such abuses or acts of violence, perpetrated by anyone - male or female. They DO NOT NEED to validate the destructive feminist abuse industry by giving it many MORE of the essential victims it needs to operate and PROFIT from, while at the same time increase hatred between adults and young people and all the other spin-offs (i.e. paedohysteria) from their hateful propaganda, that MEN would be supporting and VALIDATING by co-opting with them, that way..

It is feminism and its abuse industry that we must try to stop...Volunteering as 'abuse' victims (of women) will hardly accomplish that!

Clarence: "On thing you should know about Typhonblue: she was repeatedly raped by a female relative and the feminists did nothing to help her."

So, what, exactly, is the MRM supposed to 'do' to help her? I understand that Paul Elam is a psychiatrist: maybe he should take her on as a client, but not have her polluting the MRM with her own 'issues.'

I'd go back to dating American women again if I wanted to hear about 'female issues.'

Just to piss you off and even perhaps make you cry like the little girl you are Clarence. Now go and cry to Emma (on her blog), that the big bad Vaughn YELLED AT YOU!!! You big SISSY.See its much worse when the perpetrator's a MAN!

Eric:I have my disagreements with Dean Esmay and would not hestitate to tell him to his face that as Landriths story has changed, I've started to doubt it more than I believe it. And if he wants to call me an "asshole" for that, then he is the asshole. Landrith's story used to be simple enough and I could believe it esp as he got nothing but hell from feminists for years and years before anyone in the manosphere took up his cause. Why lie about something that brings you nothing but grief? But now that the story has changed some because of "recovered memory", I'm far less sure of any of it, particularly as he now has incentives to propagate it.

I'm sure Elvind could see from time stamps and IP addresses that I'm not 'Just sayin', but it is amusing to watch alanvaughn melt down as he looks for the "Clarence"'s under his bed. Thanks for the laugh, alan. I guess you might be good for something after all.

This in addition to his very intense and demanding (narcissistic-temperament disordered) character traits displayed amply already.

I am not a blogger and I have no idea who Cassanders is.

I don't see a type as hot-headed as Alan Vaughn as contributing in any positive way to Eivind's blog, and possibly also not to the so-called MRA-movement. Eivind, although claiming to seeth and boil with rage and anger at times, when thinking about feminists and injustices, still manages to remain perfectly calm and reasonable in his writings.

One wonders with what rage Alan Vaughn punishes his key-board, and what needs to go from his daily nutritional regimen. (Less coffee? Cut down on steaks and excessive use of salt? Less carbs?) *Something* has to be done..

I don't know any of the named people, but I know Eivind's blog very well.

I never see Eivind comment on any of the debaters.

I have acute powers of observation and am a good judge of character. I can easily see that a guy such as Alan Vaughn is a malcontent and far and away a hothead. Such people never contribute to any causes.

It's that personality type that causes schisms. Have you even read the things he writes here, and his intense, aggressive and exasperating tone? He'd attack Eivind the same way some other point down the line - these kinds of personality disordered hot heads always do.

So perhaps Eric - and I don't know anything about you either, I just know Eivind, and see what can be seen here in the blog - you should consider that I may have a point, here.. ?

I certainly am not trying to create a schism - I can assure you about that. It may be all in the eye of the beholder, though, i.e. subjective. There will always be paranoid types in a movement that is generally considered radical (by the establishment and/or by the masses).

I fully, truly support the movement, though, and want it to carry weight.

Just sayin:Alan vaughn may be a total asshat and a hothead but I strongly feel he should have the option to post anywhere he wants.His posts speak for themselves, and he does not worry me. And buried amidst all his rage and paranoia and insults there is a hard core of truth in most of them, I think you'd agree. So please drop this. I've said my piece he's said his, Eric the Awful (http://www.lyricsmania.com/erik_the_awful_lyrics_ray_stevens.html) has said his, it should be over.

Other sources say 100% of all violent rapes in Oslo are committed by immigrants. It is obvious there is a double standard. Reverse this double standard, just like Pakistan should reverse the double standard of Saudi-Arabia; reverse the present kafa'a, or sexual pecking order.

It's always funny when people who are obviously bone-headed, try to say something smart about what nationalities are better educated - when they are really only fooling themselves with silly generalisations.

Have fun in your one-man (or is that two; you and Vaughan - in two separate bodies or in one?) echo chamber, laddie.

You should not assume that people are "manginas" or "feminists" or some such, merely because they have not conceptually mastered certain fine technical points of legal/ideological thinking, as you have done, e.g. with regard to "abuse" and the like.

In fact, such people are guilty of nothing worse than being unsophisticated. In most cases, all they are really attempting is a rhetorical tit-for-tat war against feminism, by making the battle more evenly balanced on the male side of the issue.

It doesn't take much sophistication to know that women cannot perpetrate rape or sexual abuse. Normal human beings know this instinctively. A caveman or even Neanderthal used to be sophisticated enough to know that a 17-year-old boy is not a "rape victim" if he fucks an older woman, so why do the manginas at A Voice for Men buy into this feminist charade? And to a lot of them this obviously isn't a rhetorical figure (which would be horribly misguided anyway) -- they really seem to be that dense, at least as far as I can determine with my reading comprehension. If all their cheering for the female sex-offender charade is intended as satire, then please point out how you can tell.

@EivindYou know, I know, every normal person knows and Fidelbogen knows that the discussions of "Equal INjustice for ALL" (men & women) that 'AVfM' is notorious for, are NOT mere rhetoric. All those partaking in that particular discourse, SERIOUSLY believe that women are sexual predators and pose a threat to men and boys.If they do not believe that, why would they write almost endless commentary advocating such a narrative?

The compromising of the MRM (and the welfare of men and boys AND women & children) that will undoubtedly result by effectively 'co-opting' with feminists, by supporting their essential (sex) abuse industry with this total rubbish of 'women are rapists', or 'sexual abusers', may or may not be intentional, but it will surely not make life any better for anyone, when they (feminists and their abuse industry), have even more people to turn in to 'victims' (of child sexual abuse) which can only perpetuate even more societal-wide HATE, as the new 'female abusers' join the men as despised 'paedos' or 'perverts' to be lynched by the already paedohysterical public.

As you pointed out to Fidelbogen, they are that dense!

It can't possibly help ANYONE, however it will ramp the current paedohysteria up to a level that will make life dangerous for everyone, because NOBODY will be above suspicion (of being a 'paedophile' - the 21st century's witch or heretic).History has a habit of repeating itself.

While AVfM commentators are advocating this 'female abuser' idea or narrative, there is only one simple reason why you, me and every other true MRA refers to them as 'manginas' or feminists: They ARE!

Yes, Alan, I don't think my reading comprehension is that poor. The AVfM crowd really mean it when they support equal injustice for all.

Now Norwegian politicians are at work reforming the sex laws once again, expanding the definitions of every sexual crime from child porn to rape. A brand new category of "abuse" is also introduced consisting of sex with 16 and 17-year-olds who are in a "vulnerable life situation," effectively raising the age of consent to 18. And they also plan to abolish the statute of limitations so we can have our own Savile-type hysteria here with prosecutions of old men for ancient "abuse."

At which point will it occur to the manginas that supporting all this is not the way to go?

Fidelbogen: I don't think it comes down to a lack of sophistication or a rhetorical chess-game at all. Paul Elam outlined his agenda very clearly in the 'MRM Blueprint for Bridge-Building' article. He bluntly told us there that he had accepted feminism's goals. To that end, he's pushed aside men like Angry Harry and Bernard Chapin in favor of outright feminists like Erin Prizzey.

@Eivind Berg - Well, I maintain the list of female pedophiles - not because I am sex-negative - but simply to point out, the misconception that only adult males have sex with people who are "not of legal age".

However; if you consider this to be "sex negative", please shoot me an E-mail, and I'll pull the list and stop maintaining it.

Also, a QUESTION (not a criticism), but an actual QUESTION.

Some of the people the women on that list have had sexual relations with are "special needs" students, and were sodomized with sexual tools. Some of the teachers on that list use drugs and alcohol to coerce their students - is this not rape?

Also, in defense of the list, there were many cases I came across, where a teacher had sex with a student (which there are laws against) - and I did not put them on the list - because all parties were "of the age of consent" (18 here in America)

Yes, there are "teacher-student" laws - something about "a person of trust" not being allowed to "take advantage" of people under their authority - I do not list those. And of course, in Nevada, the age of consent was 16 - I find adding incidents who are 16 and older to be "iffy"...

Anyway - I will trust your judgement on this. If you think the female pedophile list I maintain is "sex negative" - send me an E-mail, and I will pull it - PERMANENTLY.

Of course, I do not consider myself to be an MRA.

However; I'd hate to think that I am being "sex negative".

My intention of the list was to point out that not all people having sex with people "under the age of consent" are men - that is, I was trying to counter-attack a negative stereo type of men.

Anyway, good article, and it does deserve clapping.

AVFM is now a joke - it has too many sexually traumatized women contributing to it...

Your female pedophile list is indeed sex-negative and feminist as it stands. However, I appreciate all the work gone into compiling it, and this need not be wasted if you simply reframe the list as a catalog of feminist stupidity instead. The list demonstrates that feminism hurts women too in equally hateful ways as men. If you reframe it thusly, it would serve as an excellent inventory of the female sex-offender charade, which is what I like to call it. Just be sure to point out that you do not condone these laws as applied women nor men. You might even want to include teacher "abuse" above the age of consent as well and all the other bizarre ways women are criminalized for their harmless sexuality. And please get rid of the "pedophile" label except in the few cases where the boys are actually prepubescent.

Is it rape to be sodomized with sexual tools or objects? The short answer is no. Not because such assaults cannot be truly heinous crimes, but calling it rape is missing the point. Rape is forced copulation, and one cannot copulate with objects. Women are indeed capable of violently abusing children up to and including killing them, and are equally culpable as men when they do so. If you are painfully sodomized by objects, is your concern going to be that the person is having "sex" with you then? Is sex really the essential element in such a crime? Is it even relevant? Does it matter what the perpetrator's motivation is, male or female? To me, such acts do not resemble sex and I believe other laws covering assault/battery/torture should apply instead. It can be as bad or worse than rape, of course, but it just isn't a sexual crime and calling it rape is a category error. It is ridiculous to include surrogate objects in the definition of rape, and doing so means catering to the ever-expanding feminist rape law reform. In Norway it has gone so far that you don't even have to touch the "victim" or be anywhere near her to be convicted of rape. It is enough to talk women remotely into masturbating, and law reform being proposed at the moment is set to define such masturbation as intercourse in order to increase sentencing and demonization. We really don't want to contribute to this hateful and illogical trend as MRAs.

As to women accused of using alcohol/drugs to obtain sex: Firstly I am highly skeptical of all claims that boys were coerced into sex with women by means of alcohol or drugs. Boys do not generally need much persuasion to have sex, but they may well enjoy getting drunk or high too, so how do you know the boys were "coerced" into sex just because there were drugs or alcohol involved? The scumbag feminist prosecutors will surely present it as a case of using drugs and alcohol to "rape" boys every time these things are involved so as to exacerbate their case, but I wouldn't trust anybody who believes all sex is rape anyway regardless of how willing and eager the "victim" is. It is indeed problematic to provide drugs or alcohol to children, but the "rape" aspect is extremely suspect. So none of these convictions can be taken at face value. How do you disentangle what is real abuse when the system is so corrupt it defines all sex itself as a heinous crime? In a sane justice system, boys would be protected against real abuse including being drugged and forced to do things they really resist, but when sex overshadows everything else, these claims cannot be taken seriously either. I say, let us oppose the sexual element in all these cases, and regard all the women as innocent unless they are only charged with actual abuse or providing alcohol/drugs to children -- which of course will never happen as long as prosecutors treat the slightest sexually charged text message as worse than the most violent physical abuse. The way to resist such an insane system is to undermine its sex-hostility by not taking it seriously, and ridiculing it vigorously. A list of all the ways women are persecuted for blatantly harmless and positive sexuality is a good way to protest, so I appreciate your work as long as you reframe it as a list of feminist insanity rather than just another piece of feminist propaganda. That's how I have been reading it all along anyway, but now that the clowns at AVfM are taking up the feminist cause and attacking female sex offenders with a straight face, the satire needs to be spelled out.

To be honest Eivind, you really lost much of that individualistic, uncompromising and independent image (an image I suspect you consciously created) when you got together with that girl. Really, isn't it sort of pathetic to simply accept the first woman you encounter? It makes me think you would have accepted anyone almost regardless of personality, appearance etc.,

First of all, I know who you might be ( http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/the-whispers/ ). If you're jealous and miserable, you're not allowed to drag other people down, ok?

Second, if you've been around between 2011 and 2013 at all, you'll know Eivind lost no personality. He got even more famous since we met, although it wasn't due to me. In the past, most comment threads were full of trolls and a few positive commenters. Now it's the opposite. He's becoming taken more and more seriously; not as a "crazy" guy, but as a voice of reason.

Eivind accepted me because I had good qualities (it's not arrogance to speak the truth). He wouldn't date a feminist. It was the same with me - I accepted Eivind because he's a great guy. Things worked from the first try - you can say it's luck.

Eivind, I think most MRAs only support applying the laws equally to women in regards to equal punishment as a way to sort of show how ridiculous they are. It seems that many problems are completely ignored until they start affecting women. That the people who've lobbied to put these laws into place never imagine that the laws will ever apply to them and theirs.

Rape hysteria is of course out there and there's no denying that the definition has been stretched paper-thin in most western "democratic" nations, but it seems that the only effective way to fight this is to push to have the same punitive measures applied to all citizens so that they are eventually removed.

This seems to apply to a lot of areas in our legal system as well. Not just sexual offenses.

It is dishonest to support disingenuous definitions and the female victims of this charade don't deserve it even if men are hurt by the same laws. And it doesn't work either because men almost never care to accuse rape. There are thousands of men accused for every woman accused of rape in Norway, so how do you expect this to impact women anywhere near equally? Even if ALL sex was defined as rape today for men and women alike, men still wouldn't take an interest in accusing rape, so the law would still almost exclusively hurt men. Pushing for equal injustice does not and will never work because men and women are different -- sex laws inevitably have disparate impact on the sexes because their sexual motivations and behavior are different, and MRAs of all people ought to be able to acknowledge this...

Now politicians are at work expanding rape law even more. Should we support this reform too as long as it is applied equally to women? I don't have words for how stupid this approach is!

Are you seriously trying to tell me that you believe that an adult woman forcing a young child, aged 4, who has no idea and no real comprehension of sex, to perform sexual acts with her is not damaging? This child doesn't understand what is happening but is frightened and scared by it, especially when the woman scares the child into secrecy by threatening their life and family? How is this not abusive?! Especially since female sex offenders typically use objects to sexually abuse the child.

Once again, using objects is not sex. The scenario you describe is certainly abusive, but not because it is sex, and it sure isn't "typical" either. Frankly I can't remember a single case out of the hundreds I have heard of where the female sex offender used objects or threatened the child's life or family (indeed they appear very naive, thinking society cannot possibly be so hateful about it as is now the reality thanks to feminism). The vast majority of female sex offenders have loving relationships with their "victims," and it is the demonization of sex itself I object to. Sex per se is not damaging unless it is coerced or you go out of your way (or society does) to brainwash the child into thinking he or she has been "abused." See "The Missing Mechanism of Harm" by Dave Riegel:

Abstract

For decades there have been claims that all sexual interactions between children and older persons “. . . cause harm, [that] this harm is pervasive, . . . [is] likely to be intense, . . . [and] is an equivalent experience for boys and girls . . .” (Rind, Bauserman, and Tromovitch 1998, p. 22). [1] There is, however, no mechanism (anon, 2013) offered as to how these sexual interactions actually cause harm, and, as noted by Bailey, “a surprising . . . lack of scientific evidence” (2011, p. 3) for these claims. Clancy (2009) took the position that at least initial trauma is a “myth,” and as far back as 1981, Constantine described the effects of interference based on this assumed/assigned harmfulness as “psychonoxious” (p. 241). This paper reviews a sampling of the literature in this area, takes issue with these unsupported claims, and argues that, instead, much real damage is done by assuming the existence of intrinsic harm when the only harm that occurs apparently is extrinsic.

Yes, that is rather mean bullying but I think it would be slightly less traumatizing because he did get attention from girls, after all. I would certainly take that over having my head dunked into a toilet, but neither is acceptable behavior. I think this incident was handled reasonably for a change. Misdemeanor battery charge possible but they didn't bother pursuing it, and no hysteria about "sexual assault," which is ridiculous but predictably what the manginas at Reddit call for along with child porn charges.

You know, something very similar happened to me when I was 7 years old. I was in the summer camp and one night kids all woke up and started having a party. It took adults a few hours to notice. During that time, two boys repeatedly tried to rip my underwear off using force. They were the same age though, and only two. I just wished they'd stop coming back and let me sleep. It was annoying and angering at the time, but didn't leave any lasting marks. I'm not sure how the boy in the video felt, I hope he's ok. But I think the toilet thing is more disgusting to a kid.

This is a great blog. Some months ago (before I found your site here) I posted a few times on AVfM challenging their view on female sex offenders, saying that if we adopt the same discredited victimology of boys-as-victims then we are being just as bad as the feminists themselves.

People on AVfM wanted statistics to back up my claims that most of this "abuse" is consensual (I provided info on meta analyses of 70 studies), so I posted that, but quickly got labelled all kinds of bad things, and had all my postings deleted by the moderator.

Yes, it's astonishing how obtuse and dimwitted they can be. The AVfM crowd have drunk the feminist sex-hostility Kool-Aid completely and cannot bear to face reality because it would create dissonance with their simpleminded brainwashing. Questioning the prevailing sexual abuse definitions would mean thinking unclean thoughts, and that is forbidded for the faithful. I was reading the Unabomber manifesto the other day and it occurred to me what is going on with these manginas. They are what he would call oversocialized. Oversocialization explains a lot of bizarre behavior in leftists and also how otherwise intelligent people can seem so dense. They have internalized society's most politically correct norms to an astonishing degree and then they ludicrously think they are rebelling against society for not living up to those same norms... But in truth they are the epitome of political correctness. AVfM is more feminist than the feminists themselves. They take the most extreme feminist dogmas at face value and then apply them even more literally and further removed from human nature while accusing the feminists of not being sex-hostile enough because not enough women are prosecuted as sex-offenders according to these hateful feminist norms. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic and destructive.

My prediction is that non-feminist women will drive social change on the sex issue first. People such as the women involved in organisations like b4u-act have set an example. More people will see that actually most men have forbidden feelings, and when that becomes clear, women will have to change their tone.

Feminism is better off perpetuating the myth that only a few deviant men have forbidden feelings, rather than the vast majority of men. If the public had to acknowledge how common it is, then feminism would not be able to make most men cower in a state of unarticulated and uncomfortable guilt.

There are other factors at play also, I think. Many early feminists experienced father-daughter incest, so they particularly like to over-generalize about their own experiences. At the same time, women can appreciate the idea of intimacy with youth, but they feel some jealousy over men because it is not in line with women's relationship goals. Women go for handsome men not because they are "handsomer" than boys, but because boys cannot do very much for women (a feminist once said to me "what can a teenaged boy do for me that my rich boyfriend can't?"). Hence when women discarded certain aspects of their old gender roles and declared men useless to them, people like Germaine Greer felt they could now openly appreciate boys erotically.

At the same time, the same women want to believe that the concept of "sex drive" is equivalent between the genders. On that point, ironically, a far right web site in the US has a tract saying that it is indeed very different - on the basis of the gland in the male pelvis which compels the brain to empty it daily (more than daily, for youth), a process for which there is no female counterpart. Women can choose to like sex (though many don't know how), or perhaps on a monthly cycle might feel compelled to find a mate, but nothing compels them physiologically to achieve orgasm on a daily basis the way the male body does.

Grow up, son. I don't think you were abused sexually, I think you are just a spoiled rotten kid whose parents didn't spank him - I guess they wouldn't since it is illegal in Norway, which explains all the open narcissism and feelings of entitlement ... even, oddly, to sex.

This post was about the immorality of punishing people for victimless sex crimes. This has nothing to do with being "spoiled rotten" or narcissistic or feeling entitled. It does, however, mean I am not brainwashed by hateful feminist sex laws which construct false victims and most bizarrely of all, pretend boys are victims of older women when it is plain to all that they are lucky. You have evidently internalized these insane norms, being a product of your sex-hostile society. Judging from your irrational hostility you are probably an American, since that is where the most ridiculously high ages of consent and other bizarre sex crimes are institutionalized and brainwashed into the populace.

The scumbags in law enforcement don't care if a crime is victimless. They only care about exerting the tyrannical malice of the government any way they can. Notice the long list of meaningless crimes they have available to charge you with in the hope that something will stick.

"They faced charges of bestiality, conspiracy and disseminating obscene materials, with Amber Fox facing an additional charge of soliciting a crime against nature."